Alterations to existing dwelling and conversion of garage building to living accommodation with first floor extension above

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 April 2018 by Gareth Wildgoose BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8 May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/D/18/3195384 Peacock Lodge, Peacock Lane, High Legh WA16 6NT  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs Laga against the decision of Cheshire East Council.  The application Ref 17/5463M, dated 25 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 9 January 2018.  The development proposed is alterations to existing dwelling and conversion of garage building to living accommodation with first floor extension above. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues of this appeal are:  Whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the development plan, and the effect upon the openness and the purposes of including land within the Green Belt;  The effect on the character and appearance of the existing property and the area, and;  If the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development. Reasons Whether inappropriate development in the Green Belt 3. The appeal site consists of a detached bungalow within the Green Belt in a countryside location, which is accessed from Peacock Lane and is physically separated from nearby farmhouses and agricultural buildings by adjoining fields. The bungalow has been previously extended including via a box dormer within its east facing roof space, a sunroom to the west elevation and a double garage and shed attached to the northern elevation. An outbuilding is located some distance from the dwelling within a paddock that lies beyond the large residential curtilage which is enclosed by hedging with some intermittent trees. In addition, there are a number of modest timber structures within the residential curtilage which I consider to be normal domestic adjuncts. Appeal Decision APP/R0660/D/18/3195384 2 4. Policy PG3 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2010 - 2030 (CE-LP), adopted July 2017, states that the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate in Green Belt, unless it falls within certain listed exceptions. The listed exceptions include at point iii, the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Policy PG3 duplicates paragraph 89 of the Framework and its bullet point 3 in that respect. 5. The Framework does not provide a specific definition of what would constitute a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building and, therefore, it is a matter of judgement for the decision maker in the context of any relevant development plan policy or guidance. In that respect, Saved Policy GC12 of the Macclesfield Borough Local Plan (MB-LP), adopted January 2004, indicates that alterations and extensions to existing houses in the countryside may be granted for up to 30% of the original floor space providing the scale and appearance of the house is not significantly altered. 6. The policy wording of Saved Policy GC12 of the MB-LP does not specifically refer to Green Belt, although the reasoning implies that it includes those parts of the countryside. Furthermore, there are criteria and exceptions within the policy that relate more closely to matters of character and appearance, than matters relevant to the assessment required by Policy PG3 of the CE-LP and paragraph 89 of the Framework. Nonetheless, in the absence of any other guidance or up-to-date policy relating to what would constitute a disproportionate addition, I consider that the threshold of no more than 30% larger in floor space than the original building is a reasonable definition for such an assessment. 7. Having regard to the above, there is dispute between the parties with respect to the floor area of the original building and the cumulative increase that would arise from the proposal when taken together with extensions and alterations that have previously taken place. Nonetheless, even the lower calculation suggested by the appellant of a resultant 54% cumulative increase above the floor space of the original building would considerably exceed the 30% threshold. It follows that the proposed first floor extension when added to the previous extensions that have already taken place would result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building for the purposes of Policy PG3 of the CE-LP and paragraph 89 of the Framework. Consequently, the proposal is inappropriate development in Green Belt. 8. In reaching the above findings, I have taken into account that the proposed first floor extension and other alterations would not alter the footprint of the existing building and therefore, would not encroach further into the open countryside. Nonetheless, the addition of the first floor extension as proposed would result in a much larger and bulkier building with increased scale and massing at first floor level which would be more visible at distance above boundary hedging than the existing double garage. In that respect, the visual impact of the extension reflected in the increase in size of the building would be viewed as disproportionate from public vantage points along Peacock Lane and would reduce the openness of the Green Belt, given that openness has a visual as well as a spatial aspect. Although there would be no other harm with respect to the purposes of including land within the Green Belt, the absence of concern in those respects is a neutral factor. Appeal Decision APP/R0660/D/18/3195384 3 9. I, therefore, conclude that the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which is harmful by definition, when having regard to the Framework and Policy PG3 of CE-LP, with associated harm upon the openness of the Green Belt. 10. With regard to the above, the proposal does not accord with the 30% threshold for extensions and alterations to houses in Saved Policy GC12 of the MB-LP. However, for the reasons previously stated, it is also necessary to consider the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing property and the area to assess whether there is conflict with that policy. Character and appearance 11. The existing property has a mixed palette of materials including brown brick and part render walls, clay tiles and grey cladding associated with the box dormer. Consequently, there is an opportunity for a more consistent use of materials to enhance the visual coherence of the building. In that respect, when taking account of the significant separation distance to neighbouring properties which consist of a mix of farmhouses and the contrasting appearance of agricultural buildings, a more comprehensive use of render would not look out of place or adversely affect the character and appearance of the existing property or the countryside area. 12. Notwithstanding the above, the extension above the existing double garage would consist of a flat roof design at first floor level. The roof design would not be dissimilar to the form of the dormer located within the roof slope of the eastern elevation. However, the resultant scale, massing and proportions of the extension would appear insubordinate and would harmfully subsume the existing character and appearance of the western and northern elevations of the dwelling by introducing an incompatible roof design that would be viewed as an incongruous, dominant and bulky addition adjacent to the original pitched roof. The harmful effect would be exacerbated by the proposed fenestration and cladding on the western elevation which would further undermine the rhythm and visual coherence of the existing dwelling. 13. The harmful effect upon the dwelling would be visually prominent from public vantage points along Peacock Lane above boundary hedging, particularly when approaching from the west, and therefore, would harm the character and appearance of the area and the countryside. In reaching that view, I have taken into account that a variation in style, scale, building heights and roof forms is evident to properties elsewhere on Peacock Lane and Limetree Lane. However, those buildings are distant from the appeal site and, therefore, do not offer precedent for or justify the harmful effect of the extension upon the character and appearance of the existing dwelling. In that respect, I also note that the Framework indicates that architectural styles and particular tastes should not be imposed. However, the Framework also seeks high quality design and indicates that it is proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness, which would not be achieved by the incompatible development proposed to the existing dwelling. 14. I conclude that the proposed development would significantly harm the character and appearance of the existing property and the area due to the incompatible design of the extension proposed. The proposal would, therefore, conflict with Policies SE 1 and SD 2 of the CE-LP and, when taken together with my previous findings, Saved Policy GC12 of the MB-LP. The policies, amongst Appeal Decision APP/R0660/D/18/3195384 4 other things, expect that all development contributes positively to an area’s character, identity, appearance, sense of place and local distinctiveness, including in terms of height, scale, materials, design features and the relationship to neighbouring properties, street scene and wider neighbourhood, and that the proposal would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the countryside. The policies are consistent with the design objectives of the Framework and in so far that it seeks that the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside is recognised. Other considerations 15. The Framework advises that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, and that ‘very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. 16. The appellant has indicated that the dwelling retains permitted development rights for extensions to the property and within its curtilage that could have an impact upon its character and appearance and the Green Belt which, therefore, constitute a fallback position in accordance with relevant case law. An extension or outbuilding with an increase footprint and floor space relative to the original dwelling if built by utilising permitted development rights could increase the site coverage of built form with a consequent greater impact upon the openness of the Green Belt. However, any fallback position in that respect would result in less harm to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling than would arise from the increased height and massing of the proposal, together with its incompatible design, and does not prevent the harm by reason of inappropriate development in the Green Belt and in terms of its openness that I have identified. Consequently, it follows that any fallback position which could be constructed under permitted development rights would be less harmful that the proposal before me. In any case, in the event of this appeal being allowed, there is no mechanism proposed to prevent the implementation of a permitted development scheme in advance of the appeal proposal. I, therefore, afford such matters little weight. 17. The appellant advises that the additional floor space proposed would considerably enhance and improve the living conditions for the appellants. However, such benefits are common to most extensions and therefore, such justification could be repeated by many others in similar circumstances which would result in a proliferation of harmful developments within the Green Belt. In that respect, little evidence has been provided to support the assertion that the occupied dwelling based on its current size and layout is unsuitable for modern family living, and as such I can only give limited weight to such matters. 18. The existing access from Peacock Lane would remain unaltered. Furthermore, the site is well served by off street parking provision which would still accord with the parking standards in the CE-LP if the double garage were to be converted to living accommodation as proposed. In addition, the separation distance from the dwelling to neighbouring properties is sufficient to ensure no adverse impact upon the living conditions and living environment of their respective occupiers. However, the absence of concern in those respects is a neutral factor that does not weigh in favour of the proposal. Appeal Decision APP/R0660/D/18/3195384 5 Conclusion 19. The Framework indicates that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. There would be associated harm to the openness of the Green Belt and significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. 20. Having regard to my previous reasoning, I find that the other considerations in this case, when taken together, do not clearly outweigh the substantial weight to be given to the totality of harm to the Green Belt and other harm arising from the proposed development. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. The proposal conflicts with the relevant policies of the development plan previously set out and the Framework when taken as a whole. 21. For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed. Gareth Wildgoose INSPECTOR